Raj Mohan vs State of Haryana

P.K. Jain, J.

this petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ''the Code'') for quashing F.I.R. No. 264 dated 12.11.1988, registered at Police Station City Dadri, for the offences under Sections 420/409/467/468/471/120B, Indian Penal Code, and the chargesheet/order dated 30.4.1991, passed by the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Charkhi Dadri, whereby the petitioner along with two others has been charged for the said offences.

The facts which can be gathered from the first information report, are that Sajjan Kumar who was employed as a temporary peon in the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Dadri, in the year 1985, for a period of about 3 months, opened a Savings Bank Account No. 5273 on 22.3.1985. On 17.8.1985, there was a credit balance of Rs. 6.67 and thereafter he did not operate this account up till 26.4.1986. On 27.4.1988 he deposited a sum of Rs. 700/ in his said Account and got issued a duplicate passbook. On 28.4.1988 he withdrew a sum of Rs. 500/ and on 3.5.1983 he withdrew a sum of Rs. 200/ from the said Account. On 23.9.1988, he deposited a sum of Rs. 3500/ but withdrew Rs. 300/, Rs. 3000/ and Rs. 200/ on 24.9.1988, 26.9.1988 and 29.9.1988, respectively, leaving a credit balance of Rs. 6.67. On 29.9.1988, he again deposited a sum of Rs. 50/ thereby making the credit balance to be Rs. 56.67. On 4.10.1988, he got prepared another duplicate passbook by showing that he had lost his pass book.

It has been further alleged that on 29.9.1988 there is no entry regarding deposit of Rs. 75,500/ by Sajjan Kumar in the said account, nor there is any deposit slip, but the credit balance has been shown to be Rs. 75,556.67 by writing ''do'' under the dated 29.9.88, and ''by cash'' under the column of particulars and Rs. 75,500/ in the credit side of the ledger. All the employees of the Bank have denied having written the said entry. It is then stated that the payment is made by the Bank employees only after seeing the entry in the ledger. It has been alleged that on 5.10.1988 Sajjan Kumar knowing that he was not having a credit balance of Rs. 75,556.67 and taking the benefit of forged entry, withdrew a sum of Rs. 65,000/ by submitting a withdrawal slip and in the same way he withdraw a sum of Rs. 10,000/ on 12.10.1988 and in this manner he cheated the Bank for a sum of Rs. 75,000/. It has been further stated that Sajjan Kumar himself or through some other person has got forged the ledger of the Bank and cheated it. It has also been stated that on 31.10.1988 it was detected that the entry regarding the deposit of Rs. 75,500/ on 29.9.1988 was bogus and was made after 30.9.1988. A written complaint was made to the S.H.O. Police Station Charkhi Dadri, by the Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce to register a case and to take action against the culprits. Consequently, the aforesaid case was registered at Police Station Charkhi Dadri.

During investigation the specimen signatures and writing of Sher Singh, Alha Singh and Raj Mohan, the three employees of the Bank were taken and the same along with the writing and signatures on the withdrawal form and the ledger proforma of the Bank were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana, Madhuban, and the report of the Expert dated 1.3.1990 was obtained. Statements of certain witnesses including Shri Balwant Rai Jain, an officer of the said Bank were recorded. After completing the investigation a chargesheet against the present petitioner along with Sajjan Kumar and Alha Singh was filed in the Court. After complying with the necessary formalities, the Judicial Magistrate found a prima facie case for framing a charge against all the thee accused by a speaking order dated 30.4.1991, and accordingly a charge was framed on the same day. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

Shri C.B. Goel, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner is not connected with the commission of the alleged offence, that he was posted as Special Assistant and his duty was just to compare the signatures on withdrawal slips/cheques which a customer presents at the time of seeking withdrawal, and that after deduction of the said amount in the ledger, the balance is correctly made by the concerned clerk. It has been further argued that the petitioner has neither made any entry in the ledger nor he is the custodian of the record and there is no material to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence in question. It has been further argued that charge under Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, has been framed against the petitioner without there being any material or evidence and as such the impugned order (Annexure P.1) and the chargesheet (Annexure P.2) are liable to be quashed.

On the other hand, Shri Raman Gaur, learned counsel for the State, has argued that according to the report of the Expert, the petitioner had made a specific entry on the ledger book, that evidence has been collected during investigation to show that the entries prior to 12.10.1988 in the ledger were verified by the petitioner, and that the petitioner had no authority to pass/approve a withdrawal form for a sum of more than Rs. 15,000/. It has been, thus, argued that from the evidence collected during the investigation, the involvement of the petitioner in the said conspiracy to defraud the Bank is prima facie made out and the charge has been rightly framed against the petitioner.

It is well settled law that at the stage of framing a charge, the trial Magistrate is not to examine meticulously the allegations and the evidence in support thereof, but is required to see if on the basis of the allegations and the material there is a ground to presume that the accused has committed an offence. If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, the Magistrate is bound to frame a charge.

The Apex Court has considered this question in several decisions i.e. State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 2018; Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 366; Superintendent and Legal Remembrancer v. Anil Kumar Bhuria, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 52 and Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1962. What emerges from a reading of these decisions is that at the stage of framing charge, if there is a strong evidence which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the Court to see that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The accused cannot be discharged if from the first information report or complaint and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code and from all other materials a prima facie case is made out against him. At the initial stage the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged and the standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise is not exactly to be applied at the stage of framing a charge. What the Court has to consider at this stage is only the sufficiency of the ground for proceeding against the accused and not whether materials on record are sufficient or adequate for conviction.

It may be clarified that in R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 2045, the Supreme Court while examining the scope of Sections 227, 239 and 245 of the Code relating to discharge in a trial (1) before a Court of Sessions; (2) of warrant cases; and (3) of summons cases, observed that in spite of difference in the language of the three sections, the legal position is that if the trial Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out, the charge has to be framed.

In the present case, evidence has been collected to prove that the petitioner had made the entry regarding the issuance of a duplicate passbook on the ledger on 4.10.1988. Evidence has also been collected to show that the entries prior to 12.10.1988 where verified by the petitioner. Statement of the Branch Manager has also been recorded to show that the petitioner had no authority to verify/approve the withdrawal of more than Rs. 15,000/ from the savings account. It is not disputed that the withdrawal form submitted by the main accused Sajjan Kumar was verified by the present petitioner although the same was to be got countersigned by the higher authority. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that there is no material to make out a prima facie case of conspiracy against the petitioner. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order or the approach of the trial Magistrate in framing a charge against the petitioner and his two coaccused for the offences mentioned above.

It is correct that this petition was filed in the year 1991 and a period of about 5 years has elapsed. It is also correct that the petitioner is under suspension. In these circumstances, it will be just and proper if the trial of the case is expedited.

For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to make efforts to conclude the trial within six months from the date of the receipt/production of a copy of this order.